A Novel Approach to Cleaning II: Extending the Modular Cleaning

Program to Solvent Gels and Free Solvents, Part 1

by Chris Stavroudis
and Tiarna Doherty

This article has been divided into two parts.

This first section deals with principles of solubility
and presents the interactive graphical display created
to illustrate solubility parameters. The second will
discuss the formulation of Carbopal gels and use of
the Modular Cleaning Program.
Abstract
The Modular Cleaning Program (MCP) was originally
conceived to assist the conservator in the formulation and
selection of aqueous cleaning systems. Upon using the system, it became apparent that many of the advantages of the
approach could also be applied to both solvent gels and free
solvents.
The two overarching principles of the MCP are the use
of small amounts of stock solutions that can be mixed to
make a large number of test cleaning solutions and the use
of physical constants as a basis for all calculations. The
conservator decides on a cleaning strategy and uses the
program to work though variables to determine the optimal
cleaning system. The computer takes care of the bookkeeping
issues associated with formulating complex mixtures. The
software provides a context showing which parameters may
be changed in a cleaning, and the conservator chooses the
direction of the testing.
Using small volumes of test solutions offers advantages in
cost, ecological impact, and heath and safety by minimizing
exposure and waste. The speed and ease with which test
solutions can be formulated allows many more cleaning options to be tested and evaluated than was previously practical when each test solution had to be made from scratch.
This paper will focus on the design of the solvent and solvent
gel capabilities of the program, which will enable a conservator to approach a cleaning using a mixture of free solvents
or a set of stock solvent gels that can be mixed together.
The MCP incorporates a new theory for formulating solvent
gels. The theory, based on empirical observation, postulates
physical-chemical structures for Carbopol-based gels. These
structures have been used to calculate the gel formulations.
A group of solvent gels has been integrated into the new
graphical display of solvent parameters, allowing the conservator to navigate visually through the selection of gel
combinations. These features are not fully integrated into
the current version of the MCP, but are included in the next
version which is being debugged as you read this.
The clearance of Carbopol-based gels will also be addressed
within the database. Recommendations for clearance mixtures
will be based on the solubility range of the Carbopol/amine
present in the gel or gel mixtures and are calculated in Hansen Solubility Space. As yet, this feature is not incorporated
into the database, but research is ongoing.
WAAC Newsletter

Volume 29 Number 3

Introduction
The Modular Cleaning Program evolved as an extension
of the Gels Research Project at the Getty Conservation Institute. Valerie Dorge, Dusan Stulik, and Richard Wolbers
wished to codify, in the form of a logic tree, the thought
process that a conservator would follow to arrive at a successful gel cleaning (Dorge 2004).
Using the logic tree concept as a basis, Chris Stavroudis
developed the first version of the MCP, which dealt with
aqueous cleaning. It incorporated the use of concentrated
stock solutions in set amounts (the modules) that could be
mixed into a wide range of test solutions. The modular system reduced the time necessary to test variables and, more
significantly, enabled the conservator to fine tune a cleaning
system. After demonstrating the prototype MCP at the Getty
Museum, Tiarna Doherty and Stavroudis discussed adapting
the methodology to cleaning with solvent gels. The concept
was discussed extensively with Richard Wolbers, who also
thought there was considerable potential in the idea.
A number of methods were tested for quickly preparing
a solvent gel of any polarity from pre-mixed components
(Appendix B). It was determined that the most workable
approach was to use pre-mixed gelled solvents that could be
combined with each other. As with the aqueous system, the
conservator would use the stock solvent gels to mix a small
amount of almost any solvent gel necessary for testing in a
matter of minutes.
In an analogy with inpainting, the set of stock gels can be
thought of as the palette, and the individual gels are the
different paints. By mixing differing amounts of the paints
together, the conservator can match any color within the
gamut of the inpainting palette. Similarly, by mixing different
amounts of solvent gels in the solvent gel set together, a test gel
of any intermediate solvent strength can be formulated. The
gel palette differs from paints in one significant way, however.
While any paint in the same medium can be mixed with any
other, regardless of where they fall on the spectrum, gels need
to have compatible polarities. Accommodating this requirement meant widening the solubility range of each stock gel.
The ability to create a gel for a solvent blend depends on the
amine used to neutralize the Carbopol and the polarity of the
solvent mixture. Typically, Ethomeen C/25 (polyethoxylated cocoamine), Ethomeen C/12 (di ethanol cocoamine), or
Armeen 2C (dicocoamine) are the bases used to react with
the polyacrylic acid groups that constitute the Carbopol
polymer. The amines are also surfactants and the differences
in the hydrophilic and hydrophobic character of each determines the polarity of the Carbopol/amine combination. If
the polarity of the Carbopol/amine combination is compatible with that of the solvent mixture, the Carbopol polymer,
along with its neutralizing amines, can unfurl and impart a
three-dimensional framework to hold the solvents in a gel.
However if the polarities are incompatible, the gel collapses
into a mixture of sticky goo floating in solvent.

September 2007

Extending the Modular Cleaning Program to Solvent Gels and Free Solvents, Part 1

In order to extend the solubility range, the idea was developed

of using two bases to neutralize the Carbopol in a gel. This
is the rationale and genesis of the so-called dual neutralization gel which we will discuss later. An additional benefit
from widening the solubility range of each gel is that a wider range of solvent mixtures could be used to clear the gel.

The MCP uses Hansens solubility theory as the basis for

calculations involving solvents and solvent gels. Because
the MCP enables the conservator to manipulate solvent
mixtures and gels using solubility theory, it is worthwhile
to review the component forces in Hansen, Teas, and other
similar theories.

To formulate a gel-based test cleaning system it was necessary that solubility theory be incorporated into the MCP.
Providing this information would allow the MCP to be used
for solvent-based cleaning as well as serve as a framework
for discussing the clearance of solvent gels. For the MCP
to support solubility theory, physical constants from various sources had to be added to the database. As will be discussed shortly, these physical constants are used to calculate
solubility parameters and predict solvent behavior.

Dispersion forces (d) are the intermolecular forces that attract all molecules to one another. They are comparatively
weak and are responsible for hydrocarbons like heptane
being liquid and larger molecules, like waxes, being solids. Also called London or van der Waals forces, they are
explained by quantum mechanics. When molecules are in
close proximity, the electron cloud of one molecule induces
a distortion in the adjacent molecules electron cloud. The
distortion causes a net attractive force despite the fact that
the electron clouds should really repel one another. Van der
Waals forces are related to the surface area of a molecule
and function only at close distances. So greater structural
similarity between solvent and solute allows molecules to
pack closer together and have more area in common, thereby increasing the van der Waals attractive force.

Solubility
Solubility theory can best be considered an extension of the
fundamental concept: like dissolves like. The more a solvent and solute are chemically similar at the molecular level, the better the solvent will dissolve the solute. Of course,
solubility is much more complicated than that, which can be
seen in the complexity of the numerous solubility theories
offered in the literature and the several systems developed
to describe the behavior, i.e. solubility parameters, of a solvent. (Feller, Stolow, & Jones 1959; Torraca 1978; Hedley
1980; Burke 1984; Blank & Stavroudis 1989; Phenix 1998).
Here, only solubility theory as it relates to the MCP will be
discussed.
The single Hildebrand solubility parameter, , is an aggregate measure of all intermolecular forces attracting one
molecule to another. It is worth mentioning that Hildebrand
and Scott proposed an equation (see Appendix A) that gives
an estimate of based on the boiling point of a solvent.
This serves to further emphasize the relationship between
the process of evaporation and solubility. It also means that
with minimal information, simply knowing a solvents boiling point, molecular weight and density, we can estimate its
solubility parameter.
However, the Hildebrand system has limitations, as can
be seen when considering two very different solvents like
n-propanol and dimethylformamide, which have nearly
identical Hildebrand solubility parameters and yet have very
different characteristics in cleaning works of art. Intermolecular forces arise from more than one sort of attraction and
each form of attraction contributes to the total intermolecular force.
Charles Hansen took Hildebrands solubility parameter and
resolved it into three component parameters, proposing that
the total energy holding molecules together was the sum of
the energy arising from three component forces: dispersion
forces, dipolar forces, and hydrogen bonding forces. Hansens three parameters are related to the total (Hildebrand)
solubility parameter by the equation:

10

2 = d2 + p2 + h2

Dipolar forces (p) are often, and incorrectly, referred to as

polar forces, as the actual phenomenon of polarity results
from a combination of forces. Adding to the confusion,
because the subscript d is already taken for dispersion
forces, they are noted by the subscript p. Dipolar forces
arise from electrostatic attractions between molecules. They
arise from permanent dipoles created by the molecular
structure, where partial positive charge is separated in space
from partial negative charge in the same molecule. Partial
positive charges on one molecule are attracted to the partial
negative charges on an adjacent molecule. Dipoles can also
be induced into molecules that dont normally possess a permanent dipole resulting in a net attractive force between the
molecules. Dipolar forces are the predominant intermolecular force in ketones.
Hydrogen bonding interactions (h) are the strongest of the
intermolecular forces. Hydrogen bonds are temporary bonds
that form between hydrogen atoms attached to a strongly
electronegative atom (O, N, F) in one molecule and another
strongly electronegative atom in an adjacent molecule (or,
in larger molecules, in the same molecule). This temporary
bond forms because the first strongly electronegative atom
pulls the electron cloud from around the hydrogen molecule,
leaving a somewhat exposed proton nucleus. If a strongly
electronegative atom in an adjacent molecule likewise has
pulled the electron clouds from atoms within its molecule, it
will have acquired a partial negative charge, and will be attracted to the partial positive charge of the hydrogen proton.
Hydrogen bonding is predominant in alcohols.
Unfortunately, hydrogen bonds behave more like an acidbase reaction than a simple attractive force, and this is a
weakness of the Hansen solubility theory. However, in most
cases, the Hansen partial solubility parameters work fairly
well, and they are used in the solubility calculations in the MCP.

WAAC Newsletter

Volume 29 Number 3

September 2007

Extending the Modular Cleaning Program to Solvent Gels and Free Solvents, Part 1

J.P. Teas took Hansens three partial solubility parameters,

normalized them, and then plotted them on a triangular
graph. The Teas diagram offers a graphical view of solvent strength that is well known to conservators. There are
many excellent references in the conservation literature that
discuss the use of the Teas diagram (Burke 1984; Torraca
1978; Hedley 1980), four computer programs that make
calculations based on the Teas parameters (Henry 1989;
Bertolli and Cremonesi; Ormsby; GELOdata) as well as
treatments of solubility theory much more comprehensive
than that presented here (Phenix 1998; Phenix and Sutherland 2001; Phenix 2002). Unfortunately, the Teas chart has
other problems (Phenix 1998; Blank and Stavroudis 1989)
which compound the limitations of Hansen partial solubility
parameters, hence the use of the Hansen parameters for calculations in the MCP.
There are buttons in the MCP to display the solvent positions in Hansen 3 dimensional space or on a 2 dimensional
Teas diagram. (As of this writing the 2 dimensional plotting
does not yet work.) The feature only works on the Macintosh platform and uses the program Grapher.app which
is included with current Mac operating system software.
The process is a bit cumbersome, but allows visualization
of Hansen space and the solvent mixture being considered
(figure 1).

Figure 1
A view of Hansen
space as visualized
by Grapher.app.

The enlarged detail,

with the background
converted to white,
shows the lines
connecting the four
component solvents
to the mixture of
the four in the
center.

WAAC Newsletter

Volume 29 Number 3

Various tabulated Hildebrand and Hansen solubility parameters have been entered into the MCP. Where sufficient raw
data is available, the MCP also calculates the Hildebrand
and Hansen solubility parameters via a number of calculations as explained in Appendix 1. The MCP preferentially
uses the published, tabulated values from: Hansen and
Beerbowers 1971 Parameters for Liquids at 25C as published in Barton, Table 11 (1991).
There is one more complication to mention: the formation
of azeotropes. An azeotrope is a particular mixture of solvents that has a boiling point minimum (or maximum) lower
(or greater) than the starting components. As conservators,
we are only interested in azeotropes that show a minimum
boiling point. Hildebrand solubility parameter can be calculated from a solvents boiling point. The boiling point of
an azeotrope is lower than either of the component solvents.
This means that an azeotropic mixture of solvents will have
an anomalous solubility parameter. This anomaly is not calculated for in the MCP. However, the MCP does alert the
conservator of any binary or ternary azeotropes that might
exist for the mixture under consideration.
Aging and Solubility
So, after all of the theoretical discussion, one is back to
like dissolves like, with the proviso that like be evaluated
on a decidedly chemical basis. Of the many cleaning
scenarios in conservation, probably the most common is
dissolving one material from another where the second
material was deposited in a mild solvent but the coating,
adhesive, or paint has changed with time and no longer dissolves in the solvent in which it was deposited. The change
in solubility of the second material upon ageing is typically
caused by any of four possible chemical changes. An organic material can oxidize, form double, often conjugated
double, bonds (i.e., yellow), increase in molecular weight by
cross-linking, or reduce its molecular weight by chain scission. (Only the first two are of significant interest in
this discussion.)
In a very simplistic way, oxidation of paint or varnish can
be considered as the addition of alcohol or ketone groups
(or both when forming a carboxylic acid) to the material. To
re-dissolve oxidized material, the polarity of the solvent has
to increase by moving towards either higher dipolar strength
solvents or higher hydrogen bonding solvents (or both). Ultimately, oxidation can require such high polarity solvents
that an aqueous cleaning system may be considered.
Similarly, yellowing can be thought of as the addition of
unsaturation (double bonds) to the structure. It might be too
broad a generalization of like dissolves like, but it is a
convenient oversimplification to try to re-dissolve yellowed
material by increasing the proportions of double bonds by
increasing the aromatic character of the solvent.
Applying Solubility Theory
It was necessary to make some adaptations to the original
MCP so that it would work with solvents, both free solvents

September 2007

11

Extending the Modular Cleaning Program to Solvent Gels and Free Solvents, Part 1

To use the diagram which, please remember,

is designed to be a tool and not a new theory
one selects a solvent to represent each solvent class: aromatic, aliphatic, dipolar, and
hydrogen bonding. Then by changing the
proportions of these solvents the database
can calculate the polarity and aromaticity of
the solvent mixture. In the MCP, the polarity
triangle and A/A bar are interactive. As the
composition of the test solvent is changed, the
position of the dots (one in the polarity triangle and one in the A/A bar) move, providing
a visual reference for the conservator.
Figure 2. The graphical display which illustrates solubility space in the MCP. There are two separate but related elements in the diagram:

the polarity triangle and the aromatic/aliphatic (A/A) bar.

and gels. Adding data on solvents to the MCP was easy,

although tracking down many of the physical constants required referring to a number of different reference sources
(Lide 2002; Weast 1972; Budavari 1989; Gmehling et al.
2004). Adding the algorithms for working with mixtures of
solvents in Hansen space, calculating Teas values and NFPA
hazard ratings was more of a challenge. The most difficult
task was to come up with an interface that made sense of the
numbers generated by the computer and an intuitive means
for the conservator to interact with the model.
As always when three variables are interacting, the best way
to illustrate it is in three dimensions. Unfortunately, practically speaking this is awkward to display and interpret.
Hence, the most significant change in the MCP is an interactive, graphical display of solvent parameters (figure 2) for
working with both solvent mixtures and solvent gels. This
display is based on Hansen solubility parameters and a new
parameter, which we have called the aromatic/aliphatic index. This diagram does not represent a new solubility theory
but is a visualization tool for the conservator. You will notice that a few familiar solvents have been indicated on the
diagram.
Examining the polarity triangle one sees that the three apexes are labeled dispersion forces, dipolar forces, and hydrogen bonding forces. While this may superficially resemble
the Teas Diagram, it is not the same at all. The horizontal
line from the left apex represents increasing polarity (in the
broader sense of the term) and is the source of the triangles
name. The increased polarity results from increasing hydrogen bonding forces, dipolar forces, or both. This trend
can be thought of corresponding to oxidation in our simple
model of the aging of organic materials.
The previous discussion of aging posits that yellowing is
attributable to the formation of double bond and that double
12

bonds require aromatic content to solubilize them. From

the perspective of the conservator, solubility theory is not
entirely satisfying in reflecting the subtlety of differences
between aromatic and aliphatic solvents. To demonstrate the
influence of the y axis dispersion forces, the vertical axis of
the diagram has been detached, as it were, and laid flat.
When the proportions of a solution change, and its inter- and
intra-molecular forces change, two dots appear on the new
version of the diagram. One, on the triangle, demonstrates
its character relative to dipole forces and hydrogen bonding
(solution polarity), while dispersion forces are demonstrated
on the aromatic/aliphatic bar. (The A/A bar is not an actual
measure of the dispersion forces, but reflects the ratio of
aromatic to aliphatic in the solution. See Appendix B for
a discussion of how the aromatic/aliphatic index is determined.) When the proportions change again, these move
simultaneously to show the new set of behavior characteristics. (figure 3)
The next installment of this article will present our ad-hoc
theory of Cabopol based solvent gel formation and will
discuss how this empirically derived model is used in the
MCP to assist with solvent gel formulation. We will then
discuss in further detail how an understanding of solubility
theory can suggest approaches to cleaning with solvents and
solvent gels and how the MCP can assist with formulating
cleaning systems. We will also consider how future research
will allow us to determine the solvent mixtures that will
most effectively clear a specific solvent gel formulation by
using Hansen solubility space calculations to determine how
good a solvent or solvent mixture will be at keeping a
given gel in a happy place, from a solubility perspective.
The MCP is available as freeware. Conservators must register before the software will work in an effort to keep nonprofessionals from thinking that a computer program can
substitute for a professional conservator.

WAAC Newsletter

Volume 29 Number 3

September 2007

Extending the Modular Cleaning Program to Solvent Gels and Free Solvents, Part 1

Figure 3. Three views of the solvent cleaning screen in the MCP, showing n-heptane alone, xylene alone, and a 1:1:1:1 mixture of
n-heptane : xylene : isopropanol : acetone

WAAC Newsletter

Volume 29 Number 3

September 2007

13

Extending the Modular Cleaning Program to Solvent Gels and Free Solvents, Part 1

Slightly Technical Appendices:

Appendix A Solubility Parameter Calculations

To calculate the Hildebrand solubility parameter of a solvent, one looks up values for the enthalpy of vaporization,
its molecular weight and density. The MCP calculates the
Hildebrand solubility parameter from the following equation:

= [(H RT)/Vm]1/2
Vm, the molar volume, is simply the molecular weight of the
solvent divided by its density, R is the gas constant, and T
is the temperature in degrees Kelvin. However, H, the enthalpy of vaporization is a complicated quantity to measure
experimentally. Hildebrand and Scott proposed an empirical
equation that relates the enthalpy of evaporation to the boiling point of the solvent:

H -12340 + 99.2(Tb) + 0.084(Tb)2
where Tb is the boiling point of the solvent in degrees Kelvin.
In earlier versions of Hansens work, he proposed equations
to determine the dipolar and hydrogen bonding parameters
based on measurable constants. Hansen used the Bttcher
equation to generate estimates for the dipolar solubility parameter via:
p = 2.0455 * [(12108 / Vm2) * (e1) /( 2e+ nD2) * (nD2 + 2) * 2]1/2
where e is the dielectric constant, nD is the index of refraction,
and is the dipole moment of the solvent (Hansen 1967, p. 25).

Likewise, Hansen proposed that the hydrogen bonding partial solubility parameter could be calculated for alcohols by
dividing the energy of a hydrogen bond (5000 cal., determined from the IR spectra for a typical H---OH hydrogen
bond) by the molar volume:

h = 2.0455 * [5000 * A/Vm]1/2
where A is the total number of alcohol groups in the molecule
(Hansen 1967, p. 24). In both equations, the factor 2.0455
converts from older cgs units of [cal/cm3]1/2 to the S.I. units
of [MPa]1/2 where MPa are megaPascals.
The MCP calculates the Hildebrand solubility parameter
from both measured H values and the boiling points of
the solvents if there are sufficient physical constants in the
database. If additional constants are available, it will also
calculate the dipolar and hydrogen bond Hansen param-

eters from the above equations and calculate the dispersion

parameter by difference. Many of the constants have been
located in reference sources, but not all information is available for all solvents. Mixed solvents, such as mineral spirits,
etc., of course dont possess these values as we are not privy
to the chemical composition of these solvent mixtures but
the manufacturer often provides the Hildebrand solubility
parameter.
Appendix B The Aromatic/Aliphatic Index

One way to estimate the difference in energy between

aromatic and aliphatic compounds is to compare benzene
and cyclohexane. Examining the pattern of the heat of hydrogenation between cyclohexane, cylohexene, and cyclohexadiene and extrapolating that pattern to a non-existent,
non-aromatic, cyclohexatriene, and then comparing that
value to benzene, one finds a resonance energy of 36 kcal
from the formation of an aromatic ring. This value is also
consistent with the heat of combustion (Morrison and Boyd
1973, p. 323).
Paralleling the way Hansen originally defined the hydrogen
bonding partial solubility parameter (above), we have proposed an aromatic/aliphatic index as the resonance energy
of an aromatic ring divided by 6 (for the six carbons in both
molecules) times the number of aromatic atoms (#A) in the
molecule and then multiplied by the number of aromatic atoms divided by the total number of carbons (#C).
Aromatic index = 2.0455 * [36,000 * (#A/6) * (#A/#C) / Vm]1/2
While this definition is arbitrary, a list of aromatic solvents
and their aromatic/aliphatic indices feels right in terms of
practical solvent power. Table 1 shows the aromatic/aliphatic index for a number of familiar solvents along with their
aniline point, kauri-butanol number, Reichardts ETN values,
and Freeds Spectral Polarity Index, Ps.
There are certainly other ways of formulating a ranking of
aromatic strength, and from the perspective of the MCP, any
could be used. (And if a more sensible schema is proposed,
it could be incorporated into the MCP.) Unfortunately,
the Percent Aromatic value that is often found in solvent
specifications is quite misleading. ASTM defines the value
of percent aromatic as the volume percent of a constituent
component that contains an aromatic structure. So, by that
definition, xylene, toluene, and benzene are all 100% aromatic.

Table 1 The Aromatic/aliphatic index compared with other polarity measurements.

Solvent
Aromatic/ % of


aliphatic benzene


index

Benzene
41.1
100%
Toluene
34.9
85%
Xylene
30.3
74%
Diethyl benzene 24.1
59%
heptane
0
0%
14

Aniline
point

% of
heptane

Kauri
% of
butanol # benzene

22F
14%
112
47F
30%
105
48F
31%
98

154F
100%
30

E TN

% of
benzene

Ps

% of
benzene

100%
94%
88%

0.111
0.099
0.074

100%
89%
67%

6.95
6.58
6.27

100%
95%
90%

27%

0.012

11%

2.77

40%

WAAC Newsletter

Volume 29 Number 3

September 2007

Extending the Modular Cleaning Program to Solvent Gels and Free Solvents, Part 1

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Alan Phenix for his
discerning comments and suggestions and Carolyn Tallent
for an extraordinary amount of editorial collaboration.
References
Barton, A.F.M. 1983. CRC Handbook of Solubility Parameters
and other Cohesion Parameters. Boca Raton: CRC Press, LLC.
Barton, A.F.M. 1991. CRC Handbook of Solubility Parameters
and other Cohesion Parameters, 2nd Edition. Boca Raton:
CRC Press, LLC.
Bertolli, I. and Cremonesi, P. 1999. Un approccio pi scientifico alla pulitura dei dipinti. Triansol : il Triangolo delle solubilit, un software per il restauro. Progetto Restauro, 10: 4245.
Blank, S. and Stavroudis, C. 1989. Solvents and Sensibility,
Parts 1-3. WAAC Newsletter, 11(2): 2-10.
Budavari, S. ed. 1989. The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of
Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals, 12th Edition. Whitehouse
Station: Merck & Co.
Burke, J. 1984. Solubility Parameters: Theory and Application.
The Book and Paper Group Annual, 3: 13-58.
Dorge, V. ed. 2004. Solvent Gels for the Cleaning of Works of
Art. Los Angeles: Getty Publications.
Feller, R., Stolow, N., and Jones, E. 1959. On Picture Varnishes and Their Solvents. Washington: National Gallery of Art.
Freed, B.K., Biesecker, J., and Middleton, W.J. Spectral Polarity Index: A New Method for Determining the Relative Polarity of Solvents. Journal of Fluorine Chemistry, 48: 63-75.
GELOdata website. SOLVATOR software. URL: www.gelodata.de.
Gmehling, J, Menke, J., Krafczyk, J., and Fischer, K. 2004.
Azeotropic Data, Parts 1-3, 2nd Edition. Weinheim: WileyVCH Verlag GmbH.
Hansen, Charles M. 1967. The Three Dimensional Solubility
Parameter and Solvent Diffusion Coefficient: Their Importance
in Surface Coating Formulation. Copenhagen: Danish Technical Press.
Hansen, Charles M. 2000. Hansen Solubility Parameters. A
Users Handbook. Boca Raton: CRC Press, LLC.
Hedley, G. 1980. Solubility Parameters and Varnish Removal:
A Survey. The Conservator, 4:12-18.
Henry, W. 1995. Application Development for the Conservation Laboratory. In: Advances in Preservation and Access,
Vol. II, ed. B. Buckner Higginbotham, Medford, Learned Information, Inc.: 156179.

WAAC Newsletter

Volume 29 Number 3

Henry, W. 1989. TeasTime. (Computer software, obsolete but

available from http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/packages/).
Lide, D. R., ed. 2002. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 83rd Edition Boca Raton. CRC Press, LLC.
McGlinchy, C. 2002. Boundaries of the Teas Solubility Concept. WAAC Newsletter, 24(2): 17-19.
Morrison, R.T. and Boyd, R.N. 1973. Organic Chemistry, 3rd
Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Nelson, R.C., Hemwall, R.W., and Edwards, G.D. 1970. Treatment of Hydrogen Bonding in Predicting Miscibility. Journal
of Paint Technology, 42(550):636-643.

Ormsby, M. 2001. Solvent Solver Program. AIC News 26(5):6.
Ormsby, M. 2004. Solvent Solver: A Calculator for Working
with Teas Fractional Solubility Parameters. http://palimpsest.
stanford.edu/packages/solvent_solver.html.
Phenix, A. 1998. Solubility Parameters and the Cleaning of
Paintings: an Update and Review. Zeitschrift fr Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung, 12(2):387-408.
Phenix, A. and Sutherland, K. 2001. The Cleaning of Paintings:
Effects of Organic Solvents on Oil Paint F ilms. Reviews in
Conservation, 2:47-60.
Phenix, A. 2002. The Swelling of Artists Paints by Organic
Solvents and the Cleaning of Paintings: Recent Perspectives,
Future Directions. 2002 AIC Paintings Specialty Group Postprints, Miami FL June 6-11: 71-86.
Phenix, A. 2002. The Swelling of Artists Paints in Organic
Solvents. Part 1: A Simple Method for Measuring the Inplane
Swelling of Unsupported Paint Films. Journal of the American
Institute for Conservation, 41:43-60.
Phenix, A. 2002. The Swelling of Artists Paints in Organic
Solvents. Part 2: Comparative Swelling Powers of Selected Organic Solvents and Solvent Mixtures. Journal of the American
Institute for Conservation, 41:61-90.
Teas, J.P. 1968. Graphic Analysis of Resin Solubilities. Journal
of Paint Technology, 40(516):19-25.
Torraca, G. 1978. Solubility and Solvents for Conservation
Problems. Rome: ICCROM.
Weast, R.C., ed. 1972. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 53rd Edition. Cleveland: The Chemical Rubber Co.
Wolbers, R. 1988. Notes for Workshop on New Methods in the
Cleaning of Paintings. Unpublished manuscript. The Getty
Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Wolbers, R. 2002. Cleaning Painted Surfaces: Aqueous Methods. London: Archetype Publications.

September 2007

15